W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2011

Minutes of AUWG teleconference of 24 October

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:15:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA5C750.1070408@w3.org>
To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/


                                  AUWG

24 Oct 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0038.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Jeanne, Alex, Jan, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland

    Regrets
           Jutta, T.

    Chair
           Jutta Treviranus

    Scribe
           Jan, jeanne

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)
          2. [6]2. Actions arising from last week:
          3. [7]reversible actions
          4. [8]term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note
          5. [9]programmatically determined
          6. [10]A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information
          7. [11]3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's
             issue):
      * [12]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <Jan> Scribe: Jan

    <scribe> Chair: Jan Richards

    <Greg> Hello Zakim

    [13]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

    [14]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

1. Last call comments (due Sept 15)

2. Actions arising from last week:

    <Jan> [15]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results

reversible actions

    Jan: PF accepted our changes to the last draft in responses to their
    cvomments

    <Jan> [16]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9

    <Jan> A reversible authoring action is an authoring action that can
    be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a
    cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include:
    "cancel", "undo", ("redo" when it used to reverse "undo"), "revert",
    "roll-back".

    Greg: If there is revert or rollback, that should also be included
    ... the revert is to a last saved point, so it would not be a
    sequential reverse of actions.

    JR: At the minimum level, it can be a revert. At the AAA it is a
    sequential reversal.

    AL: But the SC hasn't changed?

    JR: The SC has changed. The notes have moved to the definition

    RESOLUTION: Accept the above wording

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept reversible actions changes from
    "[17]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9" with
    added examples, revert etc

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq9

term "authoring action" in to the preview defn note

    <Jan> [18]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10

      [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq10

    JR: changed to discriminate between editable authoring actions and
    testing author action

    <Jan> Views in which no authoring actions are provided. Typically,
    the purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to
    end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be
    implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to
    emulate some user agent functionality.

    <Jan> Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e., the
    view is not editable). Typically, the purpose of previews is to
    present content as it would appear to end-users of user agents. In
    these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents
    or they may attempt to emulate some user agent functionality.

    JS: I think we should keep "editable" because some people may
    consider testing a preview page as an authoring action

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept: Views in which no authoring actions
    are provided (i.e., the view is not editable). Typically, the
    purpose of previews is to present content as it would appear to
    end-users of user agents. In these cases, previews may be
    implemented using existing user agents or they may attempt to
    emulate some user agent functionality.

    <Jan> programmatically determined

programmatically determined

    <Jan> [19]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq11

    JR: I added the note.

    AL: That looks fine to me.

    <Jan> Resolution: All accept "Note: In ATAG 2.0, some success
    criteria require authoring tools to make certain information
    programmatically determinable. In cases where the platform lacks a
    platform accessibility service, these success criteria are to be
    considered "not applicable". Conformance claims are optional, but
    any claim that is made must record the platform and the fact that
    the platform...

    <Jan> ...does not include a platform accessibility service. "

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

    <Jan> [20]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111024/results#xq4

    <Jan> AL: looks ok to me

    <Jan> SN: Seems reasonable

    <Jan> Resolution: All agree with "A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status
    Indicators: If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content
    being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be
    programmatically determined. Note: Status indicators may indicate
    errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or
    other information. "

3. Conformance claim harmonization with WCAG (SN's issue):

    <Jan>
    [21]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim

      [21] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111014/#conf-claim

    <Jan> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims

      [22] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims

    [comparison with WCAG]

    JR: who can make the claim is different. WCAG is completely open. We
    allow collections of software components to conform. We also allow
    the claimant to state the technologies they are making the claim
    against. ATAG also asks the platform, but WCAG does not.

    Sueann: Claims should be made by the entity that owns the
    intellectual property. This is a blocking issue.

    <Jan> SN: "Developer" is too loose

    Sueann: developer is not appropriate when we are discussing
    intellectual property. These are quasi-legal statements.

    <Jan> JR: Authoring tool provide

    <Jan> GP: Publisher?

    <Jan> GP: Licensor?

    <Jan> JS: What about open source group?

    <Jan> SN: No different..someone licenses it

    <Jan> JS: True...but who has the authority

    <Jan> JR: Authoring tool representative?

    <Jan> SN: It's the company...open source org, software company...

    <Jan> GP: The entity that controls the intellectual property

    <Jan> SN: Likes what Alex just said..

    <Jan> AL: Basically entities that do not have IP ownerhsip claim on
    a product cannot make claims

    The entity who does not have control of the inteelectual property
    cannot make a claim on behalf of the product.

    <Jan> SN: Why this "At least one version of the conformance claim
    must be published..."

    <Jan> JR: Came from here UAAG1:
    [23]http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-
    claims

      [23] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/conformance.html#conformance-claims

    <Jan> JS: Important for people out there to get this info

    <Jan> SN: Why multiple versions?

    JS: different versions of the product

    GP: those would be different claims
    ... Let's not confuse versions with renditions

    JR: This refers more to file formats.
    ... I will take an action to review the conformance claim and update
    the language.

    <Jan> ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose
    and issues for a survey. [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Review the conformance section and
    propose and issues for a survey. [on Jan Richards - due 2011-10-31].

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: JR to To review the conformance section and propose
    and issues for a survey. [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/24-au-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 20:15:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 20:15:13 GMT